3er>    JvefciLer    +  o    M.r* 


Nor^naLr*    \/.    lytPcLotph 


W$t  Hibrarp 

of  tte 

^nibcrsiitp  of  3£ortf)  Carolina 


Cnbotoeb  bp  ®fje  dialectic 

anb 

Pililantfjropic  il>oriettea 


AN    OPEN    LETTER 


Mrs.  Norman  V.  Randolph, 

President    Richmond    Chapter 
United  Daughters  of  the  Confed- 
eracy, Richmond,  Va. 
Dear  Madam: 

I  have  not  yet  received  official 
notification  of  the  action  taken 
by  the  Richmond  Chapter  of  the 
United  Daughters  of  the  Confed- 
eracy but,  if  newspaper  reports 
are  correct,  a  meeting  was  held 
on  January  28th  and  resolutions 
of  censure  were  passed  upon  Pres- 
ident John  H.  Finley,  of  the  Col- 
lege of  the  City  of  New  York, 
President  Edwin  A.  Alderman, 
of  the  University  of  Virginia, 
and  myself,  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  award  the  prize  essay. 
A  motion  was  also  made  "that 
every  division  of  the  United 
Daughters  of  the  Confederacy 
have  their  attention  called  to  the 
action  taken  by  the  Richmond 
Chapter."  This  action  was  tak- 
en, so  far  as  I  know,  without  ask- 
ing in  advance  any  member  of 
the  committee  to  meet  or  com- 
municate with  your  chapter  or 
any  member  of  it. 

Let  me  say,  then,  for  myself, 
that  I  did  not  neglect  or  delegate 
my  duty  as  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee of  award.  The  four  pa- 
pers were  received  by  me  on  May 
31st,  1908.  On  the  next  day  I 
examined  them  with  the  utmost 
care.  I  knew  nothing  then  and 
know  nothing  now  of  the  writers. 
Whether  they  hailed  from  the 
North  or  the  South  or  the  West, 
whether  from  Virginia  or  North 
Carolina,  seems  to  me  a  consider- 
ation not  worthy  to  be  entertain- 
ed by  any  man  who  accepts  a  re- 
sponsibility of  this  sort. 

On  a  second  continuous  reading 
of  the  four  essays  I  cast  my  vote 
unhesitatingly  for  the  paper 
which  I  now  learn  was  written 
by  a  Miss  Boyson  of  Minnesota. 
Her  paper  has  many  statements 
with  which    I  do  not  agree.     It 


contains  not  a  few  crudities  of 
thought  and  expression.  But  in 
the  range  of  reading  shown  in 
her  bibliography,  in  her  use  of 
English,  in  her  ability  to  weld 
thought  with  thought  and  para- 
graph with  paragraph,  in  her 
sincerity  of  purpose,  in  her  free- 
dom ffom  prepossessions,  in  her 
sense  of  historic  proportion,  in 
her  noble  admiration  for  Lee,  and 
in  the  excellence  of  her  style  and 
substance  as  a  whole,  her  paper 
is  incomparably  the  best  of  those 
submitted. 

The  method  of  fragmentary 
quotation  which  has  been  applied 
to  her  paper  is  a  method  fatal  to 
fairness  and  historical  accuracy. 
By  this  method  the  best  essay, 
the  most  eloquent  oration,  the 
truest  history,  and  the  noblest 
life  may  be  held  up  to  ridicule. 
I  voted  for  Miss  Boyson's  paper 
not  because  of  the  fragmentary 
quotations  that  have  since  been 
made  from  it  but  in  spite  of  them. 
One  illustration  will  suffice.  In 
the  Richmond  Times-Dispatch  of 
January  28th  you  quote  the  fol- 
lowing sentence  from  Miss  Boy- 
son's  paper:  "He  (General  Lee) 
was  a  traitor  in  that  he  sacrificed 
all  to  aid  the  enemies  of  his 
country."  By  thus  cutting  a  sen- 
tence in  two  and  suppressing  the 
latter  half  you  have  put  Miss 
Boyson  and  the  committee  of 
award  in  an  unfavorable  and 
wholly  unjust  position.  The  com- 
plete sentence  is  as  follows:  "He 
was  traitor  in  that  he  sacrificed 
all  to  aid  the  enemies  of  his  coun- 
try, but  so  were  George  Wash- 
ington and  John  Hampden  and 
William  of  Orange."  Comment 
is  unnecessary. 

The  basic  thought  of  her  essay 
is  in  these  words:  "The  matter 
of  secession  had  been  purposely 
left  open  by  the  framers  of  the 
constitution,  and  in  the  minds  of 
many  sincere  people   both  North 


and  South  it  was  still  a  question. 
The  real  issue  was  not  between 
patriotism  and  the  want  of  it, 
but  between  two  forms  of  it,  and 
the  point  to  be  borne  in  mind  is 
that  those  who  believed  in  one 
conception  were  as  loyal  as  those 
who  clung  to  another."  On  this 
broad  foundation,  which  is  neith- 
er Northern  nor  Southern  but 
American,  Miss  Boyson  has  erect- 
ed a  noble  structure,  marred  here 
and  there  by  ignorance  of  the 
facts  but  never  by  prejudice  or 
distorted  vision. 

Had  her  paper  attempted  to 
prove  or  had  it  even  remotely  im- 
plied that  Lee  or  the  humblest 
soldier  who  followed  him  was  a 
traitor,  I  should  have  cast  her  es- 
say aside  as  unworthy  of  further 
reading.  And  so,  I  am  confident, 
would  every  member  of  the  com- 
mittee. Robert  E.  Lee  is  to  my 
mind  the  greatest  soldier  and  the 
noblest  type  of  Christian  gentle- 
man that  the  new  world  has  giv- 
en to  history.  The  name  that  I 
bear  is  that  of  a  Virginia  soldier, 
a  father's  brother,  whose  face 
looks  down  upon  me  from  my 
mantel  as  I  write,  who  fell  by 
the  side  of  Stonewall  Jackson, 
aud  whose  honored  dust  sleeps 
within  bugle  call  of  the  two  im- 
mortal chieftains  whose  cause  he 
died  to  defend.  And  yet,  with" 
out  asking  one  word  of  explana- 
tion, the  Richmond  Chapter  o! 
the  Daughters  of  the  Confederacy 
has  sent  that  name  broadcast 
over  the  land  as  a  party  to  tin- 
defamation  of  Lee. 

I  submit  the  case,  Mrs.  Ran- 
dolph, to  every  man  and  woman 
who  knows  the  heritage  of  Con- 
federate blood  or  who  honors  the 
simple  justice  of  the  Confederate 
cause.     I  am 

Very  respectfully  yours, 
C.  Alehonso  Smith. 
University  of  North  Carolina, 

Chapel  Hill,  February  2,  1909. 


** 


m0^:m^ 


■0$  m.  ■ 


*#4 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


00036742258 


FOR  USE  ONLY  IN 
THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  COLLECTION 


